Book 2 Plus

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Nice work, Sigg.

And that table can be used (with appropriate modifiers) for missiles, energy weapons, and particle beams, too.

Now we need a quick way to handle 20+ damage rolls. One way is to use a statistical distribution, like this:

Divide hits into groups of 12 (any remaining hits should be rolled normally on the Hit Locations table). Each group of 12 produces the following hits.

4 Hull
2 Hold
1 Fuel
1 Computer
2 Drives (roll 1d6; 1-3=Jump Drive, 4-5=Maneuver Drive, 6=Powerplant)
2 Special (roll 1d6; 1-5=Turret, 6=Critical)
[/quote]This is not completely statistically correct, but it's pretty close.

Or we could use a table that has shifts to reflect the use of Target programs, like this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2d6	Hits
Roll	Scored
 2	1 Hull, 1 Hold, 4 Fuel, 1 Computer, 4 Drive, 1 Special
 3	2 Hull, 1 Hold, 3 Fuel, 1 Computer, 4 Drive, 1 Special
 4	2 Hull, 1 Hold, 3 Fuel, 1 Computer, 3 Drive, 2 Special
 5	3 Hull, 1 Hold, 2 Fuel, 1 Computer, 3 Drive, 2 Special
 6	3 Hull, 2 Hold, 2 Fuel, 1 Computer, 2 Drive, 2 Special
 7	4 Hull, 2 Hold, 1 Fuel, 1 Computer, 2 Drive, 2 Special
 8	3 Hull, 3 Hold, 1 Fuel, 1 Computer, 2 Drive, 2 Special
 9	2 Hull, 3 Hold, 1 Fuel, 2 Computer, 2 Drive, 2 Special
10	2 Hull, 2 Hold, 1 Fuel, 2 Computer, 2 Drive, 3 Special
11	1 Hull, 3 Hold, 1 Fuel, 3 Computer, 1 Drive, 3 Special
12	1 Hull, 2 Hold, 1 Fuel, 3 Computer, 1 Drive, 4 Special</pre>

"Drive" and "Special" hits would be treated just like the statistical distribution: you'd roll 1d6 to see exactly what got hit. Note that the line for a roll of "7" is the same as the statistical distribution given above.</font>

Seems pretty nice - so now a dreadnought's 150 cannons could focus on a single target! I'd suggest that non-PC ships will simply explode (or be disabled) when hit with a certain amount of hits or greater.

Hmmm... How would "T4-style" armor (i.e. each point of armor absorbs one CT-LBB2-Hit) work with this system?

 

[robject]

"How would "T4-style" armor (i.e. each point of armor absorbs one CT-LBB2-Hit) work with this system?"

My preference: rate armor by the number of hits it absorbs.

That presumes that weapons are rated in "number of hits inflicted", I suppose.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by robject:

My preference: rate armor by the number of hits it absorbs.

That presumes that weapons are rated in "number of hits inflicted", I suppose.

I already rate armor for the number of hits it absorbs and weapons for the number of hits they produce. The issue is not with each single attack, but with massed attacks, that is if you have an Armor of 1 and a single Pulse Laser inflicts two hits by default, it'll inflict one hit on you; but if you're hit by three Pulse Lasers "massed" into a single attack roll, they'll inflict six hits max at once - but I don't think that an Armor of 1 will reduce these to five hits, but to *three*, as each attack is reduced by armor by itself. The thing is that multiplying the Armor by the number of attacks "massed" into a single roll is a bit cumbersome - is there a simpler way to factor Armor into the tables?

 

[mike wightman]

Borrow an idea from GT:ISW, and then modify it a bit - armour for ships could be rated as follows:

ARMOUR     weapon it stops by ship type
RATING    fighter 100-1000 2kt-3kt 4kt-5kt
light       1xL     3xL      6xL     9xL
medium      2xL     6xL     12xL    18xL
heavy       3xL    12xL     24xL    36xL

Going back to my hit table:

die                total attack strength
roll  1  3  6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90
 0    -  -  -  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14
 1    -  -  -  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 2    -  -  1  2  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
 3    -  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
 4    -  1  2  3  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 5    1  2  3  4  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
 6    1  2  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
 7    1  2  4  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
 8    1  2  4  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 9    1  2  5  8  9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
10    1  3  5  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
11    1  3  5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
12    1  3  6 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
13    1  3  6 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
14    1  3  6 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

that gives fighters armour in the 1-3 point range, 100-1kt ships 3-12, 2kt-3kt ships 6-15, and 4kt-5kt ships 9-17.

Armour reduces the number of damage rolls after consulting the TAS table.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">ARMOUR weapon it stops by ship type
RATING fighter 100-1000 2kt-3kt 4kt-5kt
light 1xL 3xL 6xL 9xL
medium 2xL 6xL 12xL 18xL
heavy 3xL 12xL 24xL 36xL</pre>

[/quote]What does L stand for?

 

[Golan2072]

I have thought about several ideas for limiting the number of weapons per ship without resorting to statistical tables in most cases.

The first idea is to have all the weapons of one turret to fire at once and with one to-hit roll as long as they're all of the same type; if they succeed in hitting the target, roll all hits for these weapons (for example, 3 Beam Lasers will cause 3 hits), but multiply the armor by the number of weapons in the turret in order to reduce the number of hits. So most player-scale ships (up to circa 1,000-1,500 dtons) will have around 10 rolls to hit per combat round, and usually split between several targets. Mixed turrets will be common only on very small ships (300-dton or less).

For example, a triple Pulse Laser turret attacks a ship with an Armor rating of 1; roll to-hit once, and, if successful, three hits will be caused (3lasersx2hits=6; 6hits-armor1x3weapons=3 final hits). An Armor rating equal or greater to the hits generated by a single weapon will stop any attacks done with that weapon type (e.g. an Armor of 1 will prevent Beam Lasers from causing any damage and an Armor of 2 will prevent Pulse Lasers from causing any damage and so on, no matter how many weapons of the same kind hit at once).

The second idea is to create heavy weapons beyond the Turret range: Barbettes (heavy-turrets taking 2 hardpoints each), Bays (taking 5 hardpoints each) and Heavy Weapons (taking 10 hardpoints each). So, a 5,000-dton Dreadnought, for example will not fire 150 Pulse Lasers (50 triple turrets) but only 2 Heavy Lasers (think the big beam-cannons most Babylon 5 capital ships have one to three of), 4 Bays, and 10 Turrets (usually loaded with anti-fighter weapons and/or sand and thus rarely used in battleship-to-battleship attacks).

 

[robject]

Yep, I was thinking along those lines too. Although, when a turret "mini beam battery" hits, I'd only score 2 hits against the target.

When I tried this out, I used high-guard-style damage tracking: a Jump-2 drive that sustained one hit would be reduced to J1; if it was hit twice, it would essentially be out of commission.

I used a simpler armor system, with armor rating simply absorbing a number of hits from each source.

Eventually, I decided it would be best to model damage logarithmically, especially if armor absorbed damage from each source separately. It keeps the weapon damage numbers lower, armor ratings lower, and damage calculations manageable. It also helps clarify the purpose of each weapons system.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
What does L stand for?

Laser - a single beam laser hit.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I have thought about several ideas for limiting the number of weapons per ship without resorting to statistical tables in most cases.

SNIP

Me too.

Again, I quite like the way GT:ISW does it.

A 50t bay costs 8 hardpoints, while a 100t bay costs 10.

You'd then have to have bay weapons cause more damage, such that armour stops damage a bit like this:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">ARMOUR weapon it stops by ship type
RATING fighter 100-1000 2kt-3kt 4kt-5kt
light 1xL TT HT BB
medium 2xL HT BB 50t
heavy 3xL BB 50t 100t</pre>[/QUOTE]TT = triple turret
HT = heavy turret
BB = barbette
50t = bay
100t = bay

Is it worth considering spinal mounts?

 

[mike wightman]

So to continue the above.

A heavy turret to my mind would be the equivalent of about 6 lasers, a barbette 12, a 50t bay 30, and a 100t bay 60.

Thus I would give the following damage values to the heavier weapons:
HT = 4-6 (d3+3)
BB = 7-12 (d6+6)
50t = 8-18 (2d6+6)
100t = 10-24 (4d6+6)

Which gives the following armour rating range:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">ARMOUR armour value for ship type
RATING fighter 100-1000 2kt-3kt 4kt-5kt
light 1 3 6 10
medium 2 6 10 14
heavy 3 10 14 20</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

A heavy turret to my mind would be the equivalent of about 6 lasers, a barbette 12, a 50t bay 30, and a 100t bay 60.

Thus I would give the following damage values to the heavier weapons:
HT = 4-6 (d3+3)
BB = 7-12 (d6+6)
50t = 8-18 (2d6+6)
100t = 10-24 (4d6+6)

I'd rather give each weapon a fixed amount of hits, BUT have different types of weapons (Lasers, Plasma, Fusion, Missile, Sand, Particle, Railgun/KineticKill), each with a number of hits, a penetration number (i.e. the number of Armor points it ignores), and, occasionally, radiation damage. I'd use the following guidelines for turreted weapons:

Beam Laser: 1.
Pulse Laser: 2.
HE (standard) Missile: 3.
Focused Blast/AP Missile (double cost): 3, but ignores 2 points of armor.
Heavy Missile (triple cost, slower): 6, ignores 2 points of armor.
Nuclear Missile: 8 hits, 2 criticals, 2 radiation, ignores 4 points of armor.
Plasma: 2, ignores 1 point of armor.
Fusion: 4 hits, 1 radiation, ignores 2 points of armor.

Each point of armor reduces the number of hits by one. Any successful attack (i.e. hits the target) causes atleast one "hit" (damage roll), regardless or armor, UNLESS the armor rating, modified by the AP ("damage-ignoring") characteristics of the attack, is double or more of the basic number of hits the attack does. Radiation hits are reduced last by armor, and are included in the number of hits for the calculation of Armor stopping the hit altogather.

For example, a Pulse Laser does 2 hits to an unarmored ship; 1 hit to ships with Armor Rating 1 to 3; and no damage to ships with Armor 4+. A Plasma Cannon does 2 hits to an unarmored ship or ships with Armor 1; 1 hit to ships with Armor 2 to 4; and no damage to ships with Armor 5+.

Which gives the following armour rating range:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">ARMOUR armour value for ship type
RATING fighter 100-1000 2kt-3kt 4kt-5kt
light 1 3 6 10
medium 2 6 10 14
heavy 3 10 14 20</pre>

[/quote]Hmmm... I thought about having a nescery percentage of ship tonnage per Armor Point, but I like your idea of having size contribute to armor; I'd also add a "planetoid" category, since these beasts have alot of excess rock lying around for protection. Also, hull tonnage will go up to 12,000 dtons in rare cases using Ken Pick's multi-engine rules.

How would you calculate tonnage and cost for light, medium and heavy armor, then?

 

[Jame]

One question: what about allowing "small large" ships (i.e. 3000 to 5000 tons) at lower TLs, and "big large" ships (i.e. 5001 tons plus) at TL 14-15?

 

[Golan2072]

So, you mean to alter the drive TLs so that the "normal" ones (A-Z) would be TL9-12 and the "compound" ones (multi-engines, Ken Pick style) being TL13-15?

 

[Jame]

Not exactly. Something like altering the drives so that you (in the generic) can build a 5000 ton hull at TL 11-12 and a 12,000 ton hull at TL 15, with compound drives being available at any tech level.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Jame:
Not exactly. Something like altering the drives so that you (in the generic) can build a 5000 ton hull at TL 11-12 and a 12,000 ton hull at TL 15, with compound drives being available at any tech level.

You could only reach 12,000 dtond through compund drives, unless you alter the drive tables altogather (which might invalidate former LBB2 designs; I wish to extend LBB2 design options, but to keep the core compatible). If you alter the drive tables, then there will be no need of compound drives.

A compromise: alter the TLs of the LBB2 drives so that drives A-H are TL9, J-N are TL10, P-U are TL11, and V-Z is TL12; then add drives beyond Z (I'd call them the "I" series, for "Improved", marked IA, IB, IC and so on) that will be TL13+.

 

[Jame]

I think that'll work quite nicely.

 

[mike wightman]

If the drive table is extended logically then a type Z drive should be able to get a rating of 1 in a 12000t hull without the use of compound drives.
If it can give a 2000t ship a drive rating of 6, and a 4000t ship a rating of 3, then 12000t should get drives rated at 1.

 

[Golan2072]

So, Sigg, do you suggest that the hull-size, rather than the drive, be limited (for anything but space-stations) by TL due to material-strength considerations?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
If the drive table is extended logically then a type Z drive should be able to get a rating of 1 in a 12000t hull without the use of compound drives.
If it can give a 2000t ship a drive rating of 6, and a 4000t ship a rating of 3, then 12000t should get drives rated at 1.

If I follow you corectly, its rating is reduced by half (i.e. 6 to 3) for every multiplication of the tonnage, right? And 6,000 dtons will yeald a rating of 2?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
So, Sigg, do you suggest that the hull-size, rather than the drive, be limited (for anything but space-stations) by TL due to material-strength considerations?

Yep, that would be one way to rationalise it.

IMTU the maneuver drive is a combination of inertial reduction field and either ion engine or plasma rocket (plus a hybrid scramjet engine built in for atmospheric work ), so it is a combination of hull strength and maximum field size that limits the size of the hulls.

Bigger ones could be built at lower TLs but they'd have maneuver drives measured in tenths of a G.